Tweet
Democracy Let the U.S. Down
Igor Muradyan
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/comments/view/28131
Comments - Thursday, 22 November 2012, 10:44
Recently, the electoral correlation between the supporters and
opponents of reforms in Iran (conditionally) has been 35% to 65%.
There are more than 12-15 million supporters of reforms, while the
opponents are twice as many. One can get convinced seeing millions of
people on the streets of Tehran rallying against reforms.
Everything is clear with the supporters of reforms. Those are people
supported by the Western community. But what about opponents? They are
also people, and democracy supposes for consideration of their
opinions too.
Victory in the United States presidential elections is as disputable
as the one in the presidential and parliamentary elections in Iran. It
is clear that the president elect of the U.S. does not reflect the
moods and opinions of tens of millions of Americans, those who are the
groundwork of the U.S. nation. This is nonsense, and it will be
impossible to `pass' this fact.
The `fundamentalists' of traditional America spoke against not only
the president elect but also tens of millions of other U.S. citizens.
The impression is that some second-rate Americans voted for Obama,
mainly the population of coastal megacities where a strange life style
is common and is based on social benefits and programs.
In some states initiatives are launched to get separated from the U.S.
Surely, this is not protest yet but there have been few such
precedents in the U.S. history. The `white protestant' America is not
going to obey `all kinds of startups and usurpers' of power.
We can even presume that the political leaders of the country are
exposed to deadly threat. The repetition of the `experience' of
Kennedy's elimination is quite possible. All this can lead to a
political crisis not only in the U.S. but around the world, and few
people in the world are interested in this.
The important argument of Obama's opponents is the fact that the
entire Europe and Russia, as well as the Islamic and Latin worlds and
China are satisfied and cannot hide their delight not with the victory
of the Democrats but with the defeat of the Republicans in the U.S.
Even the rightists of Germany and other European countries are
satisfied. Perhaps, only the British conservatives are dissatisfied
with Obama's victory but they express it with reserve.
The problem is that by questioning the foreign political paradigm of
the Democratic Party Obama's team is trying to bury the traditions of
the active foreign policy of the party, including the use of force.
During the first term, Obama's foreign policy in fact was a very bad
edition of the foreign policy of the second term of George W. Bush.
Everything looked tolerable although very sad.
Now, apparently, the time for attempts of `total capitulation' of the
U.S. and `resetting' of responsibility for global and regional issues,
has come. The political elites of small states, located in the `belt'
of geopolitical tension do not seem to be able to understand what this
means for their country, some of which are threatened by loss of
actual and formal sovereignty. The U.S. prefers entering trades and
compromises with world centers of power.
Of course, the Americans will not be allowed to relax and fully
implement the views and intentions of the Obama team. Any U.S.
administration will have to carry on and strengthen its efforts in
respect to China, address challenges in the area stretching from
Maghreb to India. But this policy requires entirely different
enthusiasm and understanding of policies and readiness to spend
economic, political and military resources.
Igor Muradyan
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/comments/view/28131
Comments - Thursday, 22 November 2012, 10:44
Recently, the electoral correlation between the supporters and
opponents of reforms in Iran (conditionally) has been 35% to 65%.
There are more than 12-15 million supporters of reforms, while the
opponents are twice as many. One can get convinced seeing millions of
people on the streets of Tehran rallying against reforms.
Everything is clear with the supporters of reforms. Those are people
supported by the Western community. But what about opponents? They are
also people, and democracy supposes for consideration of their
opinions too.
Victory in the United States presidential elections is as disputable
as the one in the presidential and parliamentary elections in Iran. It
is clear that the president elect of the U.S. does not reflect the
moods and opinions of tens of millions of Americans, those who are the
groundwork of the U.S. nation. This is nonsense, and it will be
impossible to `pass' this fact.
The `fundamentalists' of traditional America spoke against not only
the president elect but also tens of millions of other U.S. citizens.
The impression is that some second-rate Americans voted for Obama,
mainly the population of coastal megacities where a strange life style
is common and is based on social benefits and programs.
In some states initiatives are launched to get separated from the U.S.
Surely, this is not protest yet but there have been few such
precedents in the U.S. history. The `white protestant' America is not
going to obey `all kinds of startups and usurpers' of power.
We can even presume that the political leaders of the country are
exposed to deadly threat. The repetition of the `experience' of
Kennedy's elimination is quite possible. All this can lead to a
political crisis not only in the U.S. but around the world, and few
people in the world are interested in this.
The important argument of Obama's opponents is the fact that the
entire Europe and Russia, as well as the Islamic and Latin worlds and
China are satisfied and cannot hide their delight not with the victory
of the Democrats but with the defeat of the Republicans in the U.S.
Even the rightists of Germany and other European countries are
satisfied. Perhaps, only the British conservatives are dissatisfied
with Obama's victory but they express it with reserve.
The problem is that by questioning the foreign political paradigm of
the Democratic Party Obama's team is trying to bury the traditions of
the active foreign policy of the party, including the use of force.
During the first term, Obama's foreign policy in fact was a very bad
edition of the foreign policy of the second term of George W. Bush.
Everything looked tolerable although very sad.
Now, apparently, the time for attempts of `total capitulation' of the
U.S. and `resetting' of responsibility for global and regional issues,
has come. The political elites of small states, located in the `belt'
of geopolitical tension do not seem to be able to understand what this
means for their country, some of which are threatened by loss of
actual and formal sovereignty. The U.S. prefers entering trades and
compromises with world centers of power.
Of course, the Americans will not be allowed to relax and fully
implement the views and intentions of the Obama team. Any U.S.
administration will have to carry on and strengthen its efforts in
respect to China, address challenges in the area stretching from
Maghreb to India. But this policy requires entirely different
enthusiasm and understanding of policies and readiness to spend
economic, political and military resources.